Possible to score too soon?

[Guiness]

I can't believe this thread is still going on...

[hoosier]

I can't believe this thread is still going on...

It is a tribute to Harlan's struggles with premature ejaculation. We need to keep it going as a way of showing solidarity.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a QB kneeling down also results in a loss of a yard or two

right, the suggestion is to do a QB sneak and advance the ball. It likely won't score, will make subsequent attempts more likely to succeed.

it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift

STOP RIGHT THERE. I am alarmed. Shocked even. The same result can not help both teams win.

The rampant stupidity in the forum has depressed and frustrated me. My Christmas is ruined.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That is truly a frightening thought.

[bobblehead]

I don't think I said the best thing for Dallas was for the Packers to score. But given the unlikelihood that the Packers could be stopped from scoring with 1st and goal from the 1, it made sense for Dallas to allow the Packers to score so that Dallas could get the ball back. It also made sense for the Packers to try to score, because they absolutely must have a touchdown.

If your point is that they both THOUGHT what they were doing was right, then yes. Both sides could make the logical argument...yes. But obviously only one side was right.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.....And each is a fair representation of the situation for decision-making purposes.

Both sides may have defensible reasons for their decision. But since it is a zero sum game, you have to account for the possible success of both strategies. After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Packers were right because they won.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If your point is that they both THOUGHT what they were doing was right, then yes. Both sides could make the logical argument...yes. But obviously only one side was right.

Thank you, brother. Maybe there is hope for mankind.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Packers were right because they won.

Maybe they were right. Romo also could have advanced the ball another 30 yards. It is a close call.

[bobblehead]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

.

They are mutually exclusive. We were in control of the decision to run a sneak for no gain. Again, to make that decision mathematically would mean calculating (and having the odds available) the odds of scoring still vs. the odds of Dallas scoring. You calculate the odds of each scenario, and the one that gives the best likelihood of a win is the course of action. Scenario A, take the gimme. The odds of winning are EXACTLY the odds of stopping dallas. Scenario 2. Burn the down and timeout, then odds of scoring on 2nd,3rd,4th weighted against the odds of stopping dallas. This is a much longer formula, but it will give you an exact chance of winning by taking a knee and you weigh that against the chance of winning by taking the gimme. You get an absolute answer.

NOW...if the scenario of taking the TD was the best likelihood of winning, then Dallas decision should be to try and stop us. THUS the 2 decisions are tied together and can not both be correct. If the scenario of taking the knee gave us the best chance to win, then Dallas decision would be to let us score. Again, they can't both be correct.

HH...good luck with the premature ejaculation problem, hope this is helping.

[Cleft Crusty]

But since it is a zero sum game, you have to account for the possible success of both strategies. After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.

This is absurd and self-contradictory. Since it is a zero sum game, and only one team can win, it often happens that the losing team makes a lot of smart decisions and still loses, just as the winning team can make terrible decisions and still come out on top. The question is whether a particular decision is reasonable and defensible. Packers kneeling down an extra down to force a Dallas time out/run the clock is reasonable. Dallas letting them score is reasonable. So is trying to stop them. Either one could work out. A decision is not rendered smart or stupid only based on the outcome of the game. You can't even entirely assess better or worse, because you only get to see the result for the choice you made. The speculation is of course entertaining, but absolutist claims that only one team can make a smart decision in a zero sum situation is patently false.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the losing team makes a lot of smart decisions and still loses .... only one team can make a smart decision in a zero sum situation is patently false.

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

[MadtownPacker]

C'mon now, Harlan is the expert on trying to score too fast. Probably has even got arrested for trying.

[hoosier]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

For argument's sake let's assume that you're right, at least logically speaking: both cannot be right, and thus if it's good for Dallas then it must be bad for Green Bay. Even if that is true, how does one know that Dallas has calculated correctly and made the statistically right decision? And again, what if it turns out that 1st and goal from the 1 is a gimme (so Dallas should let GB score if they want to) whereas 2nd or 3rd and goal from four feet out is no longer a gimme? For what it is worth, I am as certain as can be that McCarthy's calculations were intuitive: he preferred to take the almost-sure TD and give his defense a chance to hold, rather than screw around and take the risk of botching an end of game red zone opportunity.

[pbmax]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

You can only conclude they are wrong after multiple subsequent events. That is not zero sum. This is one element, with certain probably outcomes that will affect decisions on other events and their probable outcomes.

But you are still missing the key point. You are not comparing the same decision for each team. One of your propositions foresees an inevitable score. That is possible, even probably, but not inevitable.

The other side must consider eliminating the chance that it might not score a TD.

Its not the same predicament and therefore not mutually exclusive. Only the result will be.